I've decided in the last few months that 90% of the people who reference Chamberlain or Munich are idiots. At a bare minimum, they clearly have no idea what they're talking about.
Here's why Munich happened.
First, a strong case can be made that the Sudetenland was improperly taken from Germany at Versailles. It's very likely that any German leader would have tried getting it back one way or another. Moreover, there wasn't much in the way of international disagreement on the subject.
The French didn't have a treaty with Czechoslovakia and categorically declared that it wouldn't go to war for them. At this point, it's helpful to look at a map. Getting a British ground army into Central Europe without going through France is something of a chore.
The British and French did offer to guarantee the security of the Czechs if they allowed the return of the Sudetens to Germany, which Benes refused. Oh, and Stalin was willing to go to war with Germany, but that was turned down, too.
Most importantly, the English - especially the RAF - were in no way prepared for a war themselves. London had only begun gradual rearmament just two years earlier.
Had the Battle of Britain taken place in 1938 instead of 1940, it would have ended very differently. The Luftwaffe would have pounded the almost defenseless English into submission with its heavy bombers.
Where might you ask was the United States? It was officially neutral. Churchill had to beg Roosevelt for military aid well into the war, and FDR might have committed impeachable acts in giving it to them.
And not for nothing, When Chamberlain returned from Munich, he received a telegram from Roosevelt that consisted of just two words; "Good man."
Of course, I don't expect Jon Voight to know any of that because Jon Voight is a fucking lunatic.
I think you're being way too literal on the analogy, which boils down to that the appeasement of murderous, aggressive dictators encourages them to be more aggressive.
If Israel really is a democracy then there will be no issue with a government relying on 12 or 13 votes from the Arab united list for its majority however if the view is that you can only be the government if your coalition has the support of a majority of Jewish voters than Israel ceases to be a democracy. It's the litmus test.
The alternative to Munich was what, if not immediate war? The history shows that not only was there no consensus for war, the military preparedness for it didn't exist in 1938.
And nothing's more ironic that Americans - who as a matter of national policy stayed out of the war until directly attacked and Germany declared war on them - making superior Munich references.
Netanyahu, for the last six years, has been doing something far worse than Munich - threatening war and not following through. What message does that send to Tehran?
It is my opinion that going to war with Iran is a huge strategic mistake, but issuing empty threats is even worse. At some point, The Iranians will conclude that Jerusalem isn't serious about anything, if they haven't already.
6 comments:
I've never followed an election in another country as closely as this one.I pray there is some way Bibi gets re-elected
I've decided in the last few months that 90% of the people who reference Chamberlain or Munich are idiots. At a bare minimum, they clearly have no idea what they're talking about.
Here's why Munich happened.
First, a strong case can be made that the Sudetenland was improperly taken from Germany at Versailles. It's very likely that any German leader would have tried getting it back one way or another. Moreover, there wasn't much in the way of international disagreement on the subject.
The French didn't have a treaty with Czechoslovakia and categorically declared that it wouldn't go to war for them. At this point, it's helpful to look at a map. Getting a British ground army into Central Europe without going through France is something of a chore.
The British and French did offer to guarantee the security of the Czechs if they allowed the return of the Sudetens to Germany, which Benes refused. Oh, and Stalin was willing to go to war with Germany, but that was turned down, too.
Most importantly, the English - especially the RAF - were in no way prepared for a war themselves. London had only begun gradual rearmament just two years earlier.
Had the Battle of Britain taken place in 1938 instead of 1940, it would have ended very differently. The Luftwaffe would have pounded the almost defenseless English into submission with its heavy bombers.
Where might you ask was the United States? It was officially neutral. Churchill had to beg Roosevelt for military aid well into the war, and FDR might have committed impeachable acts in giving it to them.
And not for nothing, When Chamberlain returned from Munich, he received a telegram from Roosevelt that consisted of just two words; "Good man."
Of course, I don't expect Jon Voight to know any of that because Jon Voight is a fucking lunatic.
I think you're being way too literal on the analogy, which boils down to that the appeasement of murderous, aggressive dictators encourages them to be more aggressive.
If Israel really is a democracy then there will be no issue with a government relying on 12 or 13 votes from the Arab united list for its majority however if the view is that you can only be the government if your coalition has the support of a majority of Jewish voters than Israel ceases to be a democracy. It's the litmus test.
I don't believe I am.
The alternative to Munich was what, if not immediate war? The history shows that not only was there no consensus for war, the military preparedness for it didn't exist in 1938.
And nothing's more ironic that Americans - who as a matter of national policy stayed out of the war until directly attacked and Germany declared war on them - making superior Munich references.
Netanyahu, for the last six years, has been doing something far worse than Munich - threatening war and not following through. What message does that send to Tehran?
It is my opinion that going to war with Iran is a huge strategic mistake, but issuing empty threats is even worse. At some point, The Iranians will conclude that Jerusalem isn't serious about anything, if they haven't already.
http://www.i24news.tv/en/tv/live Live feed from Israel Richard if you're interested
Post a Comment